Poll: What concerns you most about Adobe's move to subscriptions?

Adobe's decision to move to a subscription-based model for its professional creative software has prompted probably the most impassioned response we've ever seen to a news story on dpreview.com. There's a risk that the sheer volume of comments might prevent a clear message being heard, so we've prepared a poll of the most common complaints, to help establish what your biggest concerns are.

While there's every chance you are uncomfortable with a number of aspects of Adobe's decision, we want to know what's most pressing. So please vote for the factor that is of greatest concern to you and we'll communicate the results to Adobe.

Have your say

What concerns you most about Adobe's move to subscription-based software?

Comments

I like the fact that for once, most people on DPR are in agreement on something. You can say what you want about Adobe's terrible move, but at the very least, they have given us something to unite over. And that is something quite valuable. :)

I have already switched back to FCX instead of upgrading Premiere Pro. I am going to buy Aperture today. I am looking for a Photoshop alternative currently. I have been an Adobe user since Photoshop 2.0. Kiss my left toe Adobe because I ain't renting.

One problem with FCPX is it is production-house unfriendly. If you are doing one off individual projects it's fine. But in my job I need to assign audio tracks for output, and FCP X ballsed this up magnificently. Still, for most TV work, even Premiere Elements works fine. I edited two broadcast documentaries on it.

"For the foreseeable future" is corporate-speak for: if you abandon Adobe and come over to Corel, then we'll take over as the industry monopolist and then we (Corel) will start charging you the monthly tax too. We (Corel) don't see that happening in the foreseeable future, but it's out preferred option.

I mean, c',mon, if Corel really meant that they want to satisfy users and give them buying options, they would never have used the phrase "foreseeable future".

This is the world we live in. It is all about money. There are no good guys - only guys who haven't been given the opportunity to get corrupted by power and money.

After reading many posts on this DPR and photo.net, it strikes me that most people haven't grasped the long term implications. Here are some common dis-illusions:

-- People who think they can use CS6 for 10 years, since it meets their needs. Well, not if you buy the next model DSLR that's not supported by CS6.

-- Each time Apple upgrades their OS every year, it breaks many previous versions of software, so if OSX 10.9 breaks CS6, then everyone is stuffed, or can't get new Macs.

-- It also hasn't struck most people that they're going to be paying this monthly fee till they die, that is, if they want to access their Photoshop files, created with the newest software, even after retirement.

Adobe is not the only game in town. And while today the competition may not quite stack up - there is nothing like a group of truly upset customers ready to try new alternatives to lure new players into the game. We may all look back at this and thank Adobe for releasing its stranglehold on the market and allowing some new ideas to emerge.

CS6 will be updated to ACR 8 when released, but without the ACR 8's new features. But for how long will the updates last?

If you buy a new camera that isn't compatible at some point though, you can always convert your brand new RAW files to DNGs, but hold on, that's an Adobe format! Who knows how they'll mess about with that in the future.

They are also not realising that there is built in HARDWARE obsolescence in this plan too. There is NO option to hold onto an older version of Photoshop because it functions better on your slightly older machine.

I clicked on choice #1, "Having to repeatedly pay to retain access", but in actuality I am concerned about all of the first four topics. Conveniently, they are even listed in the priority order of my concern - #1 down to #4 topics are #1down to #4 of my priority of concerns.

Please add "All of the above" to the poll and restart; I'm sure the statistics will skew to "All" pretty quickly.

The poll should really have a choice for 'All of the above', otherwise its just biased towards helping Adobe find the most objectionable aspect of the CC. Then they could eliminate *it* as their bargaining point to try and keep CC!Please put the 'All of the above' choice in, if you want a 'fair' poll.

2. Do we really need the Cloud?Answer is Yes and No. Having worked on Photoshop since 1.0 as a professional image editor and a photographer, I have seen the whole ecosystem evolve. If you are using PS 5.5 or 6.0, it has more or less all the tools for creating professional imagery. Photoshop, Illustrator and Indesign are already mature products. Any changes they do would only to add bells and whistles. From a production perspective - what we have itself can take care of atleast next couple of years. Only thing to watch out is when you upgrade your camera system - does the CS 6 Camera RAW support the new model. Otherwise, I think we are quite good with what we have.

I'd like to look at this from multiple perspectives:1. How valid is charging a fee for the entire Master collection wherein you are going to use only a part of it? CC subscription gives access to the entire master collection. It is only beneficial for only those creative professionals who are into photography, design, web and film making. But the question is how many of them are there who can truly utilise most of the software in their day to day work. If you are a designer and a photographer - you get to use only Photoshop, Indesign, Illustrator and Acrobat at the most Dreamweaver. The question is why would you have to pay for the tools which you may never use. My suggestion would be to have a different pricing model on the same lines of Creative Suite based on the category of users. This would not only bring down the per month subscription cost for the user but also keep the offering more customer friendly.more...

It is all points of the Poll that are not acceptable to me, not only a single one:

1) Having to repeatedly pay to retain access

2) Adobe's pricing is too high

3) The need to occasionally connect to the Internet/Cloud-> I live in a country which blocks sites at a whim, e.g. Adobe educational section is already blocked to me.

4) Uncertainty over future of Adobe or pricing-> If last week Adobe pricing was just at the pain barrier, now it is 200 % of the pain barrier, what insurance do I have a year later it is not even higher above the pain barrier

And for me there are other one:5) I can not legally rent the software w/o hiring a translator-> I buy and license the SW in the country where I live. All terms are available only in a language I can not understand.

6) What if Adobe ceases to exists? All my Photographic work and memory then cease to exist ?This one is not impossible. Look at Kodak. King of the hill, now dead.

I have used Photoshop for years, buying the updates on a regular basis. Unless Adobe changes its new policy, CS6 will be my last. The price for iits new "servce" is much too high for the many serious amateur photographers and professionals who do not use Photoshop (and the other "creative" products) for many hours each day. Its rationale for the change is not convincing. It will not, by Adobe's own admission, improve security against software piracy. I see this as a scheme designed to increase revenues, having nothing to do with product quality, service to users, and certainly loyalty to customers. I anticipate that the strategy will fail in the marketplace, but if not, eventually I, along with many others, will be moving to other products. Indeed, Adobe is creating a wonderful opportunity for new products, one of which may replace Photoshop as the future image editing standard.

I work for a newspaper. Currently we can go 5-7 years easily on a Photoshop license. If we have to pay a monthly fee indefinitely things will change. We have enough monthly bills without getting tapped by Adobe too.

There are many issues with this situation .....It is not just a product ... it is a way of life that we have accepted to follow.I have spent thousands of dollars on instructional courses with Adobe Guru's, bought many books from Adobe specialist, and purchased many videos on use of each version. You will notice the word "bought". I did not rent any of this. The specialist I trust, the books are my reference library, and the videos are my inspiration. If I ever thought this would turn into a pay or lose situation I would never supported all those that are on the inside of Adobe.I have had frustrating problems with customer service... I can never talk to anyone in North America, unless I am purchasing product. I have paid for all my CS suites, but never got service with them. I have paid for hard copies... never received them. Why would I believe in a "Cloud" system when the corporation is lost in a fog already??Too bad we have been cheated!

While I sympathize with all of the anguish here, I see this debate as being about open-source software. The argument for open-source software all along has been without it, your ability to work, to produce, to think, is at the mercy of people who have profits and not your best interests at heart.

So, what will the decision be? I suspect that most people will switch to open-source software only when the pain of trusting companies like Adobe becomes worse than the pain of adapting to new software. For many people, the extra cash that Adobe wants will not be enough to get them to switch. They are grumbling now, but they'll pay up to avoid having to learn new skills.

It's your choice. Gimp is to Photoshop what OpenOffice is to Microsoft Office, more than adequate for the majority of users. But Adobe knows you'd rather fight than switch, like Tareyton smokers, and of course this will happen again, not only with Adobe, but with other software manufacturers as well.

I learned PS in 1993. Since then I have bought upgrades on major releases, culminating with 5.5. I had actually bought a year of cloud in February for $600 because I decided to migrate from FCP7 to Pr. I use and own versions of AE and Illustrator and last year I switched from Aperture to Lightroom.

I will not be renewing next year. This weeks proceedings have me reconsidering FCPX and Avid. I am white hot seething mad. What really gets me is all the years of support, all the learning I am going to have to dump. But I will. Hopefully there will be enough folks like me to force a change in policy.

No, Adobe decided to get rid of customers like yourself, so if you leave, they already factored that in. See the DPR interview with Winston Hendrickson. Adobe foresaw that people like you will leave, but Adobe is fine with that.

Agreed. But a lot of this debacle could have been avoided if they had been honest and said "You whiners who don't buy every version of everything we produce (even before the bugs are out) are just a big drag--sayonara!"

It is probably a poor observation, I wonder if Adobe are breaking U.S. anti-trust legislation. Their products have a large market share, many of them command the market and at the moment there is no comparable alternative to Photoshop. It would interesting to find out.

Would it hurt them to release a new version every 2 or 3 years with whatever upgrades are now in at full price. Could help. Some of us usually only want to upgrade around 3 years anyway. Please offer that option, plus cloud for the photo/designer/ad/marketing people. who cloud is intended for anyway, not us hobbiests or semi-pros. Just put out a full version every 3 years for the rest of us photographers and we will be plenty happy!Anybody agree?

Adobe basically said they knew their decision would infuriate people like you, but they're prepare to get rid of the likes of you that only upgrade every 3 years. People like you are not important to Adobe. I'm not making this up. Go read the above interview. Adobe can't care less if you never ever buy their products again. This CC strategy is to milk the professionals who are locked into their products.

Quoting Winston Hendrickson, VP of Creative Solutions, Adobe Systems: "We expected a higher degree of this type of reaction from the hobbyist photographic community because currently there's not a lot of photography-specific value in our subscription products."

I have two concerns. One seems to be shared by many of posts here--I resent the overnight shift in business model after about 15 years of my purchasing their product. My second concern is a little out of the mainstream. I spend several months a year at remote field locations doing marine research. At best I have limited Internet access via cell-phone but often I have none. Most of my photos are used for scientific research--I can't use a cloud service as my primary storage, it actually violates terms of most research grants and I take far more pictures than the 5GB of bandwidth per month my cell phone carrier alots me. I also can't afford to lose access to photoshop/premier simply because I can't get access to the Internet or that access cuts out.

It's customers like you who allow Adobe do whatever they want! People who never take a stand and do away with something to send a message... why would Adobe even care if they know customers like yourself will come around after a whining period! I like Adobe too but I WILL NOT be part of this cloud crap! I will switch to something else...

When digital photography overtook film, wasn't one of the big advantages supposed to be convenient *ownership* (figurative and literal) of the entire chain of production? It's one of the big changes that shifted much of my work to digital: no more buying film, no more bills to get it processed and scanned.

If shooting digital professionally now costs $50/month and Adobe's turn toward the "rental" model foreshadows an industry-wide trend, then we might as well be back in the days of Kodak and Fuji determining how much the ingredients cost to cook. Shooting digitally, you'll soon have a very film-like "production budget." $50 to Adobe, $25 to Microsoft, $[x] to who-knows-else. (Probably Google.)

Oh well. That decade or so of "ownership" in photography sure was nice while it lasted.

What should be plainly clear at this point is that Adobe has funneled the profits it has made over the years not into software development but, rather, into investing in server farms and trying to manufacture an environment where their customers would have to lock into their ecosystem to continue to use their products. Photoshop, etal, are no longer software products they are baited marketing hooks to lure customers into their internet cloud services.

None of this should truly come as a surprise to folks. As a publicly traded entity in today's environment of the supply-side economic model of the past 30+ years years here in the U.S., Adobe is obliged (I prefer, enslaved) to its stock holders into producing a profit no matter what the consequences. As someone who has done "corporate" for the past 32 years I can tell you this, if their gambit for "cloud" doesn't pay off the first casualties will be the customer's needs and the employees pay and benefits. It's exactly what is going on today with my employer corporation. IMHO. Adobe should have taken those years of profit and bought back its stock, taken itself private, and gone about what it knew how to do best...provide creative tools for creatives.

That Hendrickson and company wish to believe that they are dealing with a disgruntled amateur "hobbyist photographic community", well, ahahahahah, that is truly their call. I've sat with corporate heads who have exhibited the same level of, what I'm seeing as, hubristic mischaracterizations of their customer base. The thousands of photographers affected are nearly all small businesses that make cost analysis decisions daily, and the "buzz" is for affordable alternatives offering substantial cost savings and sharing and marketing their work in a variety of markets and venues. Not in a fish bowl.

Frankly, as I see it, they got their marketing strategy backwards, the old "cart before the horse". How it should read is "software ownership first, then free online (ahem, cloud, cough) storage of 20GB for Each Title Ownership, then extra prices for additional storage"

In the meantime, their competitors have a wide-open field to poach their customer base. Methinks they should have at it. What the environment needs is more creativity and more diversity and some kick-a** tools.

And, from this long-time customer, from v. 3.0.5 to CS 5.5, "I've done my own cost-analysis, and you've been EOL'ed as a consideration for my next platform!".

It seems my comment was removed. It did not have any inappropriate expression. Oh well. Regardless, I reallly hope this scheme fails for Adobe and be forced to roll back. Fear is the other 'me too's on all other software. We better nip in the bud and say 'no'. 'Consumer has spoken' would be a golden moment.

A few years ago Microsoft said that Windows will eventually be an internet based software with no Windows files on your computer. AND Adobe said the same thing a couple of years ago. They are following through on their plan.

Adobe's move is a good proof that Adobe's products are all very mature, in their autumn, or, an old age. Adobe Flash was the same, and if it weren't for Apple, we'd still be stuck to that dying old horse of a technology.

Adobe as a company lost ideas on how to invent and excite creative customers. It only thinks now how to retire safely by harbouring with their cash cows.

'Visual industry' and 'creative' are NOT synonyms. Most of visuals today are streamlined stereotypes served at a fast pace. Adobe will lose the core of truly creative users, a new talent which is always climbing from the bottom up and is challenging norms.

Adobe has damaged its loyal customer base to protect itself from pirates selling software to people who NEVER would buy it full price.In short destroy loyal customers base for no reward in extra customers.How much do i lose in money and lost work if Adobe goes under unable to access psd's containing thousands of hours of my work?Time to look around for an alternative..

And fir alternatives how about DPR actually ask some HARD questions not allowing lame answers?Or maybe even show them just how upset the community is not just that they are unsettled..lol..ridiculous questions and far from the community response.

The pirates will laught and crack the protection (and not even use the software)While loyal customers have about three options1) stick with CS6 as long as possible2) be a Cash Cow e.g. CC customers sucker3) switch to something else...Corel?...x) turn into a Pirate !!

At the moment that is the case. Once they have a mature download only model the installation package could be hardware and user locked as opposed to the installed software. Yes it may be possible to hack it but they won't just be able to distribute a cracked enterprise version as is currently the case.

As a hobbyist, I primarily use Lightroom, and occasionally (maybe 1x/mo) PS CS5. I can justify buying your product if I use it (remember, occasionally) for a few years. If I'm forced to pay a monthly subscription, I'll find different software such as GIMP or ACDSee. If the Lightroom perpetual license goes away, I'll use Aperture. Adobe -- you won't lose my sale immediately, but next year when I would have considered a software upgrade, I will not buy a subscription and you will certainly lose my business. My money will go to your competitors.

I just watched the "Adobe CEO Avoids Answering Questions on Overpricing in Australia" video on YouTube. SEE IT SEE IT SEE IT !!!The Adobe CEO is absolutely the most F*%ked-up guy I've ever seen.

He REFUSES to answer a direct, easily understandable question from a magazine writer, even after being asked the SAME question 3 times !!!

I had not realized what a screwed-up company Adobe was until another person on this forum pointed out this video. LOOK AT THIS VIDEO, and then tell me if you want to use products from a company with a CEO like this! I'll bet that he was the driver on the upcoming Photoshop CC fiasco.

He's just a typical CEO... totally removed from reality and surrounded by @$$ kissers who stand around and praise whatever he says so they can keep their useless, meaningless jobs they wouldn't otherwise be able to get anywhere because they don't know anything... I was in the corporate world for too long and know the type from a mile away!

The only solution for these situations is not to purchase their product... that'll teach them...

Yeah! Adobe is getting flamed on their PS Facebook page... They have a robot repeating the same crap from the announcent, just like the couple of paid trolls in this forum, but the wave of anger is real!

Might be time to dust off my always updated, but seldom used copy of Apple's Aperture. My techie daughter actually prefers it to Lightroom. I am fearful that Adobe may turn the same greedy eye towards Lightroom at some point. At least with Apple products, the initial outlays are generally pretty reasonable and upgrades are often no to low cost.

That's an arrogantly obtuse response. The "amateurs" would like to use the suite too ... but at 50 bucks a month you gotta be kidding. And 20 bucks a month for one lousy app is robbery. Microsoft give you all of office for about 10 bucks a month and you get 5 licenses. That's what Adobe should be looking at to retain some customer royalty.

On the other hand, maybe the arrogant "professionals" can keep Adobe's boat afloat all on their own ... if so, then I say good luck to them all.

By the way, you pay 50 bucks once for a game ... you pay it every month to Adobe, so your comment was not even close to accurate.

You know, if we all throw a $20 dollar bill at the Gimp.org, that just might be the boost they need to get up to speed with adjustment layers. I have been waiting years for that and if the Gimp can get them going, I'd never look back at CC. I have CS5 now and can't even afford CS6.

I don't know which OS you're running, but instead of GIMP I'm using Pixelmator which gives me the best alternative to PS. They may port it to being able to run on other OS after this Adobe move and become viable choice.

Regardless of rental price, I will not risk processing one of my images with a Creative Cloud version of Photoshop and not be able reopen them (with all the layers, masks and adjustments intact) using CS6. This would be of primary importance should I not continue to rent.

None of the issues in the Quick Pole concerns compared to loosing access to my editing work.

No, but at a certain point before that time Adobe is likely to stop updating say ACR for CS6. Guess it's not important if you don't use raw files from newer cameras or use different extraction software.

Compared to serious raw extraction software, ACR, CaptureOne, Bibble, DXO, Aperture, UFRaw is horrible at noise control, so that's kind of important unless you only shoot at base ISO.

Then it's just not very good software generally for raw extraction, sort of like Photoline--both use some variation of Denoise. Zoner is okay for raw extraction, but at least on a Windows computer, it's very glitchy.

Bibble is now Aftershot from Corel. And I think that perhaps Capture NX2 opens more than Nikon raws, but I haven't tried it recently.

Thankfully there are other software developers besides Adobe. I'm betting they're about to welcome quite a few new customers. PS might be the best, but honestly... lots of people will manage without it.

The protests focus on Photoshop, but do not forget that Lightroom is in the same situation as PS one year ago. You can choose between the cloud and a perpetual license, they said. We no longer have the choice. It will be the same for Lightroom. Whatever they say, whatever they promise, it is now impossible to trust them. Better to abandon all Adobe softwares, and also the DNG which is their trojan format. Every photo processed in Lightroom will have to be reprocessed in the next raw software because the development metadata will not be compatible. So it's better not to wait too long.

The protests focus on Photoshop but it is even WORSE for InDesign users.

Photoshop works with industry-standard image formats - JPEG, GIF, TIFF, etc - and "can" save in its proprietary format, PSD. Several other software products offer PSD 'compatibility' - not perfect, but at least they can open them.

InDesign saves exclusively to its proprietary format, INDD. No other software product can open and work with the files - you are locked in. If you lose InDesign, you lose all access to your saved projects - hundreds to thousands of man-hours locked away, completely unreadable.

Photoshop is the tip of the iceberg. For us combination Photoshop / InDesign users, it is life or death, really. I even hear that InDesign CC does not create the backwards-compatible files that were promised, making any CC created INDD files completely and utterly locked in to the CC subscription system.

100% completely and utterly NOT ACCEPTABLE. I hope the production typesetting industry says "No!"

Do I understand this correctly?say I buy in, over the next two years I'll pay $240, and if I stop 6 months later it breaks since I stop paying? To me this is monopoly abuse, and yet (as if to confirm it) is there really anything remotely better?

It is actually 9.99 a month for first year if you have CS3 or later on single app. After the next year, regular pricing is 19.99 a month for single app like Photoshop CS6. So it is regularly 240 per year or 480 for 2 years at regular price. First year only is half price. There are also suite pricing for multiple apps which is different. See adobe.com. Hope I understand the pricing right on single apps.Myself, I would rather buy the full software outright as I may not need to upgrade for awhile if it meets my photographic needs.These pricings are meant more for graphic designers/photograpers in larger companies who need to upgrade every release, so may work for them better. Sorry, not for me, as I do not use all features in software anyway.

So at regular pricing in 3 years time, you have paid for a full version equivalent of the software. Is it worth it? Depends on each one needs to upgrade. Hobby photographers or semi-pros likely do not need continual development of software as it is already very mature product anyway with lots of features as is.Not counting first year half price.240 a regular year (20 per month rental) x 3 years = 720.CS6 Photoshop regular full license price (non-cloud) = 699.I have CS4. Too bad they no longer offer upgrade to full CS6 at lower price. I have to buy at full price. Those are the breaks. To upgrade or not to upgrade, that is the question! CS6 is still offering support for newer OS coming out.

I imagine in future years it'll be just like ISP or mobile phone monthly prices over the past 20 years and drop dramatically, and then even throw in extra incentives like free domains, extra storage, unlimited texts etc etc.

They're simply doing what every mature and greedy corp. wants to do - innovate less and have a steady income every month. In the military, we called these kinds of people "lifers". Dilbert's Wally comes to mind.

Last time I checked customers have the freedom of choice as to when to purchase something they want! What Adobe is saying is like buying a car and having to pay for ever to be able to drive it and the car company will take it away the moment you stop paying... oh you get to keep your driver's license!

SHAMELESS and tyrannical!! I am going to buy that CNX2 I've been evaluating! looks like a better choice by the day!

Yeah, it's called a lease. And with a lease, you can dump the car, sublease the car or buy it out. Not so with Adobe. You can pay or not. If you say not, then all your files have to be processed elsewhere. Not sure where that is, so one must be very careful once one jumps in.

What on earth are you talking about 4th year, 5th year, 6th year. How old are you and what is your life expectancy -- 70's, 80's, 90's? If you want to access your photos after you retire, you keep paying.

Sorry, some of the confusion is that you are actually not storing your photos online. You are downloading software to your computer for install, working natively and saving on your computer. You only use internet to verify your Adobe ID. You have access to all your photos whether you pay or not if you save on hard drive. You can duplicate files and store on cloud if you wish or else don't. However, save into a common format incase the PSD format can only be opened by latest version. Jpeg and Tiff formats are universal to many softwares. PSD (if not layered with new version effects) can also be opened by older versions that you own (provided the PSD does not have new software feature in it). Save a second file non layered / flattened in PSD or Jpeg or Tiff, and you can open anytime without license or else in older Photoshop versions and full license CS6 will be supported for any new OS systems coming out, at least for time being says adobe.

In small business terms:Previously, the Adobe software was an assetNow, it will be an expense.This has HUGE implications for MOST creative businesses, like photog, architects, graphic designers, etc.98% of these are small companies, who cannot afford a regular expense like this. Its a shame for Adobe as their products (esp. the suits) are reasonably well integrated products...RIP

As I posted elsewhere, many independent artists, photographers, graphic designers, desktop publishers, web page writers will need these programs, but not be able to afford them. I think this model will really pinch the lower-earning folks in any of these disciplines. It takes a critical mass of work/revenue to support this model. So newcomers, part-timers, etc will have a hard time establishing themselves.

It only costs $600 a year to have full access to the programs, but you must also have the computer processing power to support these advanced programs.

As I said earlier, although it's a subscription model and looks cheaper on first glance, it actually ultimately RAISES the bar on entry for young and talented innovators. There is no option to use an older version at a better price. You need non-productive/billable access to the software even to build up your skills in it.

It helps to protect the old with established practices who won't want these young whipper-snappers coming in with their newfangled ideas. That's why some of them., who regard themselves as the "elite", like it. The great thing about the computer and internet connectivity is how they have opened up creative possibilities to more people. This takes you back to the OLD business model.

"If a business can't absorb a $20 monthly expense, then they have bigger problems" You are assuming that other software developers won't follow suit. And Microsoft is already chomping at the bit to do so. That can add up to a lot of $20. And why should a sane business owner think INCREASING overheads is a good idea? Where your argument falls down is that there is NO excuse for not giving consumers the choice.

You are (deliberately?) missing the point. If the subscription model really benefits consumers and not the corporate, give them the choice between the stand-alone and the subscription and let them make their own choice in their own best interests. The only reason Adobe is not doing this is that they KNOW consumers have more sense. Meanwhile, although I have CS6, I just gave money to Corel for Paintshop Pro, which I OWN for the price of one good dinner for two or three months of Photoshop subscription. I don't trust Adobe's promises on CS6 or Lightroom either right now.

Thinking about it, the only sensible way apart from a one-off purchase solution, could be to "pay-as you use". Basically you downliad the software package abd once you run it, you pay a very snall fee for every minute. But this would only make sense for some people and if you do not have sign up to a subscription. This would actually encourage more small companies to purchase "on-demand" licenses. This model would work in parallel to "traditional" licenses where one purchases a disk.

Poll results show only 5% of voters "think it might work" and the trend with voting is downward, with this choice sitting at about 5.5% just 1 hour ago. So 95% of the voters think this was a bad idea, that leaves me wondering how stupid a company the size of Adobe can actually be. Apparently they can be incredibly stupid.

Microsoft, in spite of all feedback from betas, thought everyone would eventually love Windows 8. It's these sorts of people that populate corporate management of software companies. You can imagine the Adobe board meeting:

Voice of reason - "The masses will whine".

CEO -- "They'll whine for a few years, then they'll get used to it. CC will become the norm. After 5 years, they'll have forgotten there ever used to be an alternative. Then we've got them for life. They'll think it's normal to pay an Adobe tax for the rest of their life even after retirement to access their photos. So we (Adobe) must stand firm to withstand the onslaught of criticism. Be strong. That's what you pay people like me to be CEO. I will stare them down. I won't answer their questions. I will act like a politician and just tell them what I want to tell them. I am boss.

Funny that you mentioned Windows 8, Microsoft just recently admitted the UI was a huge fail and will be providing an update later this year to reinstate the older desktop. But it was the slump in PC sales that provided most of the motivation to make the change.

I don't see how this CC model will succeed at Adobe. The feedback is overwhelmingly negative, even from clients who really like the products.

But imagine how many people are racing around trying to snap up the last copies of CS6 before it disappears forever. That will provide a nice blip for Adobe and some might actually think this CC model is working.

Not sure what the final upgrade will encompass. It was on the local news, PC sales are dropping and the manufacturers were putting pressure on Microsoft to fix the UI. My guess is it will probably end up being a service pack.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Nikon Z6 may not offer the incredible resolution of its sibling, the Z7, but its 24MP resolution is more than enough for most people, and the money saved can buy a lot of glass. Find out what's new and notable about the Z6 in our First Impressions Review.

Many cameras today include built-in image stabilization systems, but when it comes to video that's still no substitute for a proper camera stabilization rig. The Ronin-S aims to solve that problem for DSLR and mirrorless camera users, and we think DJI has delivered on that promise.

The SiOnyx Aurora is a compact camera designed to shoot stills and video in color under low light conditions, so we put it to the test under the northern lights and against a Nikon D5. It may not be a replacement for a DSLR, but it can complement one well for some uses.

At its core, the Scanza is an easy-to-use multi-format film scanner. It offers a quick and easy way to scan your film negatives and slides into JPEGs, but costs a lot more than similar products without a Kodak label.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

For the past few weeks, our readers have been voting on their favorite photographic gear released in the past year in a wide range of categories. Now that the first round of voting is over, it's time to pick the best overall product of 2018.

Sony had the full-frame mirrorless market to itself for nearly five years, but it's no longer alone – the Nikon Z6 and Canon EOS R have both arrived priced to compete with the a7 III. We take a head to head to head look at these three cameras.

As if it needed one, the triple-camera smartphone might really be the final nail in the compact camera's coffin. DPR contributor Lars Rehm brought the LG V40 on a hiking trip recently and found it to be a huge leap forward in terms of creative freedom.

Renowned UK-based landscape photographer Nigel Danson has been using DSLRs for years. In this video, created exclusively for DPReview, Nigel discusses his experience using the Nikon Z7 and why he's excited about mirrorless cameras. (Spoiler... beautiful scenery ahead.)

Chinese optical manufacturer Kipon has added the Nikon Z and Canon R mounts to its range of adapters made to attach medium format lenses from Hasselblad, Mamiya, Pentax and others to full frame cameras.